Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:09:50 GMT

"Martin Shobe" <mshobe@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:020kh0dit2umrn2tk6lih0q91mnqh0u38u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:59:57 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:h77hh09dgpr36g7q1g671b2m9sphqkehfr@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:43:29 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
> >> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:411773FB.3020801@btopenworld.com...
> >> >> Peter Olcott wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If Turing use the diagonalization approach then the basis of my refutation
> >> >> > would not apply because the pure math version does not permit the
> >> >> > equations to have any intelligence. The equations are not allowed to
> >> >> > refrain from returning a result.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was all about maths to begin with. Did you really not know that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Simon
> >> >>
> >> >No I did not. I thought that it was about Turing Machines.
> >>
> >> huh? tms are not a mathematical topic?
> >
> >Not really they are much more of a comp.theory topic.
>
> I believe that nowdays, they aren't that much of a computer theory
> topic. The preferred formalism in computer theory is currently the
> lambda calculii.
>
> Martin
>
Yet I have shown that the purely mathematical approach sometimes
ignore crucial details that could have be applied to solving a problem.
Specifically because these details are ignored, a solution is PRESUMED
to be impossible.

Relevant Pages